• Help with slides creating in order to Submit a Final Project presentation (either using PowerPoint slides with voice over, or a presentation video, or link to your video) using the following for your title:EvaluatingXXX (name of the program)-Presentation.
• The presentation will last 15 minutes (+/- 1min). In your presentation, you need to cover the following elements:
• Describe the background and the goal of the evaluation
• Describe the program to be evaluated, including a logic model
• Explain your data collection and analysis methods
• Key findings
• Recommendations

The presentation will be evaluated by peers using the following rubric. See the Grading Criteria folder on the main page.

10:41 Blackboard .1 5G 254 C . . . Program background . SHARP . ARMY SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS . 1 HOUR IN PERSON TRAINING ANNUALLY 1 HOUR COMPUTER BASED TRAINING ANNUALLY . ASSAULT/HARRASSMENT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE Program background Program background COVER PAGE . SHARP . ARMY Problem . Caters to one audience - participants new to topic . SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS HOUR FOROTTER BASED TRAINING ANNUALLY Team, class, program name + + Goal Lack of ability to recall/utilize knowledge and skills learned . ASSAULT/HARRASSMENT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE . Focus H 2 3 + Add page Duplicate Delete Color10:41 Blackboard .1 5G 254 C . . . Program background . Problem o Caters to one audience - participants new to topic o Lack of ability to recall/utilize knowledge and skills learned . Goal . Focus Program background Logic Model Evaluation Purpose Problem . Need to update Caters to one audience - participants new to topic Lack of ability to recall/utilize knowledge and skills learned promotion of effective skills and knowledge to identify prevent. + + and response to sexual assault and harassment as well as student . Focus commitment to course material. + 3 4 5 + Add page Duplicate Delete ColorData Analysis : Thematic Analysis I'm thinking bubble chart to reflect grouping/themes OR two columns positive and negative What barriers prevent students (trainees% from becoming proficient in identifying sexual harassment (e.g. subject matter)? How would you describe your \"own\" preparedness training for personnel on this subject matter? How would you describe your impression of the time allotted to train personnel on this subject matter to meet overall program objectives? Positive 1.Program Knowledge - (Learning about the SHARP Program and ways to prevent SA/SH) 2.In person/ hands on skills training - (dedicated time with staff member learning skillsets) 3. Depth of content (a lot of useful Negat?v%ntent) 1. Lack of time devoted to topic - (total course time between web based and in person is only 2 hours annually) 2. Focus on only basic program knowledge ( repetition of same material/entry level knowledge year over year) 3. Perceived lack of need - (service members report not seeing incidents during span of career) Key Findings e EQ2-Eval Question 2 - Are 2nd, 3rd, 4th+ time student learners less interested in SHARP topics due presentation of same new entrant material o Multiple instance SHARP participants demonstrated lower levels of interest in the SHARP program. = Participants on average reflected a decline in program interest per iteration of training participated in (15t,2nd, 3rd, 4th time participant). 1sttime repeating training =percent less interested e 2ndtime repeating training = percent less interested 3rdtime repeating training = percent less interested e 4t time+ repeating training = percent less interested Key Findings EQ1- Arestudents who participate in the training program (more than once) better able to IDENTIFY, PREVENT, RESPOND to occurrences of sexual harassment and assault when they see it? o Program Participants are less capable of applying IDENTIFY, PREVENT, and RESPOND measure when taking the training more than one instance. = Participants reflected a steady decline in knowledge assessment score the more instances they have been through the training. 1-year additional training = average percentage 2years additional training = average percentage 3years additional training = average percentage e 4+years additional training = average percentage Data Analysis : Thematic Analysis I'm thinking bubble chart to reflect grouping/themes OR two columns positive and negative What barriers prevent students (trainees% from becoming proficient in identifying sexual harassment (e.g. subject matter)? How would you describe your \"own\" preparedness training for personnel on this subject matter? How would you describe your impression of the time allotted to train personnel on this subject matter to meet overall program objectives? Positive 1.Program Knowledge - (Learning about the SHARP Program and ways to prevent SA/SH) 2.In person/ hands on skills training - (dedicated time with staff member learning skillsets) 3. Depth of content (a lot of useful Negatfv%ntent) 1. Lack of time devoted to topic - (total course time between web based and in person is only 2 hours annually) 2. Focus on only basic program knowledge ( repetition of same material/entry level knowledge year over year) 3. Perceived lack of need - (service members report not seeing incidents during span of career) Please find Team SHARPs (Ava Allen, Dannier Reyes, and Adam Thibeault) for Week 4's answers to our discussion prompts for the week annotated below. LEARNING OBJECTIVE (COGNITION]) List one specific learning objective set for participants in the learning program your group is evaluating. Note that this aspect corresponds to the cognition vertex of the assessment triangle (NRC, 2001, p. 44-47). Selected Learning Objective (LO): \"Identify sexual harassment and respond appropriately.\" ASSESSMENTFORMATS(OBSERVATION]) Describe two assessments of different formats (e.g., multiple choice, open-ended response, performance task) that you believe will target the same learning abjective listed above. Provide one concrete example/item for each assessment. Note that this aspect corresponds to the observation vertex of the assessment triangle (NRC, 2001, p. 47-48). Determining our assessment formats has some basis on one of our evaluation questions. The evaluation of focus for this particular discussion is: Are participants who achieve course completion able to identify the basic signs of Sexual Harassment and reporting measures? We wanted to provide evidence for the expected, learned behaviors to help answer this question withintheresearch. Tohelpinformourstakeholdersfordecisions,weproposetwoassessment formats that begin to provide an end-to-end view of effectiveness, one from the learner's viewpoint and the other from the trainer's perception, respectively. The first assessment format will include a survey for learners to understand how well-equipped they feel to identify sexual harassment from the program. The second assessment format will include inquiries to the trainers to determine their perceptions of how well the program prepares them to educate learners to meet this same learning objective. Both surveys will take a qualitative approach with open-ended and/or scaled (e.g., Likert) questions with the expectation that the structured data could be used for improvements within the program (e.g., curriculum, material, trainers, etc.) The following table includes both the questions for the trainer and learners in a table. The table has been created for a more efficient presentation. It is important to note, however, that the questionnaires/surveys would be delivered separately as separate assessment formats to avoid any compromised tradeoffs and keep focus appropriately on each item group (NRC, 2001). Sample Survey Questions -. The following sample of our survey design is subject to change as we learn more about the training journey for this topic. Future survey questions may be developed for other parties involved. Data Collection Method/Strategy: Gather new data via survey questions Distribution Method: Email survey to participant groups separately Survey Question Survey Question Response Responses Justification (for Trainers)* (for Program Type Learners)* Whatbarriers WhatbarriersintheOpen-ended Respondent input Understanding pain preventstudents trainingprevent text points from (trainees)from youfrombecoming respondents' becomingproficient proficientin perspective on inidentifyingsexual identifyingsexual training hurdles harassment(e.g. harassment(e.g. subjectmatter)? subjectmatter)? Howwellequippedis Afterthetraining, Multiplechoice Very-well Demonstrates a thematerialyou howwellequipped(Scaled) equipped (5 need for content receive to adequately do you feel to pts eview versus trainstudentsto identifysexual Equipped(4) trainer competence identifysignsof harassmentsigns? Somewhat evels sexual harassment equipped (3 upon completion? Poorly equipped (2) Not equipped(1) Responded input How would you N/A Open-ended Understands the describe your "own" text perception and preparedness attitude of the training for personnel trainer regarding on this subject their "own" training matter? to impart the knowledge required. Understanding if Howwouldyou N/A Open-ended Responded input describe your text adequate time impression of the allowed for trainers time allotted to train to develop the skills personnel on this to train others on subject matter to this topic meet overall program objectives? Howwouldratethe Howwouldyou Multiple choice . Highest Understanding theSurvey Question (for Trainers)* quality of material presented to trainees? (1 = lowest quality, 5 = highest quality) How would you rate typical feedback received from trainees in response to the current training provided? (1 =extremely negative, 5 = extremely positive) How prepared do you feel the trainees are to identify and respond to sexual harassment after completing of this training? 1 =Unprepared, 5 = Most Prepared) Survey Question (for Program Learners)* rate the overall quality of the materials provided by the training? (1 = lowest quality, 5 = highest quality) How would you rate the trainers within the program? N/A Response Type (Scaled) Multiple choice (Scaled) Multiple choice (Scaled) Responses Justification Quality (5 pts) perception of the @ GoodQuality materialspresented (4) withinthe @ NeitherGood curiculumdesign nor Poor(3 @ PoorQuality (2) @ Lowest Quality(1) Positive (5 pts) intolhow the @Positive(4) trainipgimpacts @Neither studentsfromboth Positivenor perspedtives Negative(3 @ Negative(2) @ Extremely Negative(1) MostPrepared Uhderstandingthe (5pts) trainer'sattitude @Adequately regardingwhat Prepared(4) studentshave @Neither learned Prepared nor Unprepared (3 @ Somewhat unprepared(2) @ Unprepared(1) *presented separately to respondents, the table is just for efficiency in the discussion. INTERPRETATION Describe actual/possible learner responses and how you would interpret these responses, especially how participants' responses would help you evaluate the program. Note that this aspect corresponds to the interpretation vertex of the assessment triangle (NRC, 2001, p. 48-49). In this case, interpreting learner responses would include learners and trainers surveyed. With the end-to-end perspective, we would initially assume that respondents have prepared and/or participated in some training activity before collecting evidence. Possible responses would manifest in the following summarized measures and comparisons: Trainer: The instructor's (trainer's) self-reported perception of student abilities and knowledge post-program metric can likely be reviewed in a comparative spirit to the student's responses. When there is a misalignment on similar questions, we can infer that a change in the learning delivery, materials, or curriculum may need to be considered. For example, suppose the trainer feels the material is well prepared for the students, yet the students feel the material is lacking. In that case, this potentially demonstrates that the material is ineffective or presented ineffectively for the diverse learners in the course. Also, for a more comprehensive result, these formats should be administered very close in time to help pinpoint specific trainer issues that may be possible as well. Learner: With learners, responses will give insight into their confidence to achieve the learning objective of being able to identify sexual harassment and respond appropriately on their own without significant guidance. Responses regarding a metric associated with the number of barriers to proficiency (from summarizing the question result) will help focus on segments of the training or environment that cause barriers to learning in their own words. By minimizing the barriers to meeting the learning objective obtained from learners, observing practitioners will have information (e.g., scenarios, use cases) for focusing on improvement with the expectation that metrics will improve through barrier minimization or elimination. References National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309072727